Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 05.07.1994 - 21921/93 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1994,22702) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
R.A.G. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80
UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EKMR, 05.07.1994 - 21921/93
In his defence plea, the applicant's lawyer, referring to the Unterpertinger judgment (Eur. Court H.R., judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110), argued that the statement by the applicant's wife before the police and the investigating judge should not be admitted as evidence, since the defence had not been able to put questions to her. - EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86
ASCH v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EKMR, 05.07.1994 - 21921/93
It would clearly have been preferable if it had been possible to examine her in person at the trial, but subject to the rights of the defence being respected, it was open to the domestic court to have regard to her previous statements, in particular in view of the fact that it could consider them to be corroborated by other evidence before it, including the police report of 16 September 1990, the written statement of 24 September 1990 by the doctor who had examined the applicant's wife and the applicant's own letters to his wife (cf. mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R., Asch judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, pp. 10-11, para. 28). - EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87
EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EKMR, 05.07.1994 - 21921/93
The Commission must ascertain whether the proceedings, considered as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was submitted, were fair (cf. Eur. Court. H.R., Edwards judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, para. 34).